[36550] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Maxwell)
Tue Apr 10 16:57:54 2001
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:30:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@automagic.org>
Cc: "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20010410162806.H7423@buddha.home.automagic.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010410162749.27307P-100000@da1server>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Joe Abley wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 03:45:10PM -0400, Greg Maxwell wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 08:27:54AM -0400, Greg Maxwell wrote:
> > > > The reason they don't allocate /24's is because without aggregation the
> > > > Internet is not scalable. Perhaps they are being too agressive, but the
> > > > reasoning is sound.
> > >
> > > Aggregation buys time, that's it. Aggregation does not make the
> > > current routing methods any more scalable.
> >
> > In IPv4 yes, because you can't have perfect aggregation, too much network
> > multihoming and old prefixes and it's to painful to change address blocks.
> >
> > In IPv6, if implimented right aggregation provides for virtually limitless
> > scalability for unicast traffic.
>
> So long as "implemented right" means "edge sites are no longer
> permitted to multi-home at the IP layer". If those are the
> constraints of your routing policy, IPv4 will scale too. Very
> nicely.
Well, thats close to what I ment. My proposal is that any networking
level multihoming for IPv6 not be globally advertised (I.e. two tier-2's
could fast path their networks to each other, and they both fully carry
the routing burden of that choice without impact to other networks). It should
be clairfied in the end-to-end multihoming draft soon.
